We've done this before. Choosing sides = hardliner.sergeriver wrote:
I generate violence in a games forum? Israel and Palestine won't deal coz of my viewpoint? I don't think so. I hope they sort things out some day, but allow me to express my opinion. I don't like extremists from both sides. So, don't tell me a hardliner.
Poll
They steal your home: what would you do?
| I would leave in silence | 3% | 3% - 4 | ||||
| I would fight them and recover my home | 49% | 49% - 57 | ||||
| I would ask the police to evict them | 39% | 39% - 46 | ||||
| Other | 7% | 7% - 9 | ||||
| Total: 116 | ||||||
Check the poll results mate, almost everyone has chosen a side, Palestine's.Pug wrote:
We've done this before. Choosing sides = hardliner.sergeriver wrote:
I generate violence in a games forum? Israel and Palestine won't deal coz of my viewpoint? I don't think so. I hope they sort things out some day, but allow me to express my opinion. I don't like extremists from both sides. So, don't tell me a hardliner.
Ah, ok, just making sure ^^Pug wrote:
Konfusion:
I knew you were. Either both sides are damned or both are not in my book.
Yeah, I agree. They have to get over the past, but I reckon that Palestine deserves reparations for what they've been through and the land they've had taken from them. But that's just my opinion
-konfusion
But here's the point I'm trying to make and have stated several times: both sides are not being reasonable. By siding with one side, it accomplishes nothing. It seems simple to give the land back and walk away but it's a more than just that. It's a component that needs to be addressed within a very complex negotiation process.sergeriver wrote:
I want to be on the bridge, but the bad neighbor doesn't want me there. You are taking this issue personal, and I'm not against you, I just have a different view.
The reason I believe you are baiting is not because I believe you have a different viewpoint...I know you have have different viewpoint. But I have pressed some points which have been answered with deflecting comments which do not address the actual information within. If you don't want to broaden your view, then at least address my posts which are focused on a fresh look at the situation and put less emphasis on the past.
I believe its a requirement for peace. If you do not, then fine. I do believe that it will only extend the conflict.
Plus I believe the analogy you posted, as well as mine is demeaning and disrespectful to the parties directly involved.
That's simply not the case. It's exactly the same situation. Although this analogous rubbish makes everything a lot less clear and it's complicated enough to start with - which is why I think this whole analogy is misleading and counter-productive to any actual understanding of what actually happened.san4 wrote:
Key phrase: "hardships [he] has been through". The "hardships" aren't just in the past, and the "hardships" include being murdered. If your neighbor is being chased by people who want to kill him for no good reason, it's a very different situation--legally and morally--if he takes your house to defend himself.Bertster7 wrote:
How is that in any way relevant. It makes no difference what hardships your neighbour has been through, they may come into play when he is being tried after being arrested, but they would not be of any interest to me.san4 wrote:
The point isn't the justification of the firing, the point is that the nature and persistence of the series of incidents that brought the neighbor back has a huge impact on how the question should be answered. "He was fired" minimizes both the nature and persistence.
The whole 'being chased by people who want to kill him' thing isn't a relevant comparison either. You could say the "hardships" included having family members murdered and being threatened with death, but the being pursued by people who want to kill them angle just isn't valid, especially considering the bulk of the violence at that point was committed by the anti-social squatting neighbour. For example you hit your neighbour as he went into your house and he retalliated by killing your wife and child, that would also be a valid comparison.
Not to be pedantic or owt....but you mean scorched Earth?!ATG wrote:
Two words:
Scorned Earth
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
You can't be on the bridge unless you agree both sides are equally to blame. And saying both are bad but one is worse does not count.sergeriver wrote:
I want to be on the bridge, but the bad neighbor doesn't want me there. You are taking this issue personal, and I'm not against you, I just have a different view.Pug wrote:
So your purpose is to argue as much as possible and to bait people instead of trying to build a bridge between the gulf. I'm already on the bridge. You are not.sergeriver wrote:
Last week is the past.
I'm not saying Israel get the fuck out of Israel, I'm only saying Israel get the fuck out of Gaza and West Bank. I'm not siding with Palestine's extremists, I'm siding with the oppressed people who live in the OT and don't throw rockets to Israel. Those I side with.Pug wrote:
But here's the point I'm trying to make and have stated several times: both sides are not being reasonable. By siding with one side, it accomplishes nothing. It seems simple to give the land back and walk away but it's a more than just that. It's a component that needs to be addressed within a very complex negotiation process.sergeriver wrote:
I want to be on the bridge, but the bad neighbor doesn't want me there. You are taking this issue personal, and I'm not against you, I just have a different view.
The reason I believe you are baiting is not because I believe you have a different viewpoint...I know you have have different viewpoint. But I have pressed some points which have been answered with deflecting comments which do not address the actual information within. If you don't want to broaden your view, then at least address my posts which are focused on a fresh look at the situation and put less emphasis on the past.
I believe its a requirement for peace. If you do not, then fine. I do believe that it will only extend the conflict.
Plus I believe the analogy you posted, as well as mine is demeaning and disrespectful to the parties directly involved.
Congrats on validating the violence in the region & justifying the circle of hate.sergeriver wrote:
Check the poll results mate, almost everyone has chosen a side, Palestine's.Pug wrote:
We've done this before. Choosing sides = hardliner.sergeriver wrote:
I generate violence in a games forum? Israel and Palestine won't deal coz of my viewpoint? I don't think so. I hope they sort things out some day, but allow me to express my opinion. I don't like extremists from both sides. So, don't tell me a hardliner.
The whole point is, the guys who call the Palestinians terrorists would act the same way.Pug wrote:
Congrats on validating the violence in the region & justifying the circle of hate.sergeriver wrote:
Check the poll results mate, almost everyone has chosen a side, Palestine's.Pug wrote:
We've done this before. Choosing sides = hardliner.
Steal my home??? I'd go Jihad on there ass.
Absolutely reparations are in order, part of the diplomatic solution.Konfusion0 wrote:
Ah, ok, just making sure ^^Pug wrote:
Konfusion:
I knew you were. Either both sides are damned or both are not in my book.
Yeah, I agree. They have to get over the past, but I reckon that Palestine deserves reparations for what they've been through and the land they've had taken from them. But that's just my opinion
-konfusion
This is quite different then seeing violence as the only avenue to get your home back.
Congrats on validating the violence in the region & justifying the circle of hate...again.sergeriver wrote:
The whole point is, the guys who call the Palestinians terrorists would act the same way.Pug wrote:
Congrats on validating the violence in the region & justifying the circle of hate.sergeriver wrote:
Check the poll results mate, almost everyone has chosen a side, Palestine's.
I'm not doing that, but if you want to say it, be my guest.Pug wrote:
Congrats on validating the violence in the region & justifying the circle of hate...again.sergeriver wrote:
The whole point is, the guys who call the Palestinians terrorists would act the same way.Pug wrote:
Congrats on validating the violence in the region & justifying the circle of hate.
Then what exactly are you saying?
It looks to me you are assessing blame.
It looks to me you are assessing blame.
No, I'm just showing how the things are to all those guys who always side with Israel. I'm assessing the meaning of justice.Pug wrote:
Then what exactly are you saying?
It looks to me you are assessing blame.
Justice for who? It's possible that justice cannot be obtained to satisfy everyone involved.sergeriver wrote:
No, I'm just showing how the things are to all those guys who always side with Israel. I'm assessing the meaning of justice.Pug wrote:
Then what exactly are you saying?
It looks to me you are assessing blame.
You have the right to your opinion, as do I. I hope for you to take this one step further. Up until the historic "Israeli Heavy Handness" thread I was of the mind where it was more important to point a finger. I don't think that way anymore.
At a later date we could have a hardliners debate to see what happens. Even though I don't favor Israel I can defend their actions, just like the Palestian cause. But the results will be inconclusive and we won't be any closer to a solution.
Damn this website, I got to work.
sergeriver wrote:
I don't know what you mean Bubs. Would you leave?Bubbalo wrote:
Disco dance party!
Far too obvious, serge. Not that I don't like your thread in general, just far too obvious.
I agree with Bubbalo. It is a bit obvious, and there are problems with the analogy. Domestic and world stage issues are two different animals. Comparing the two are fine for a small point for a quick quip, but is dreadfully lacking for the talking point of a full-blown thread.Bubbalo wrote:
You do realise the inherent problems with the analogy?
Serge: you forgot the "strap bombs to chest and blow up Pakistani restaurant and patrons" option.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-03-28 18:42:36)